More specifically, and by way of non-limiting example, the www.buzzfeed.com website uses an embedded flash player to present a first data type of a video file of "Boris v Romney" along with the presentation of advertising data of a second type that includes a static image advertisement for "Sour Patch Kids," for example.

For purposes of Claim 64, when a web browser of a client device displays the Defendant Website, the web server that serves the Defendant Website downloads both the video file (first data type) and the static image advertisement (second data type). The web server that serves the Defendant Website then executes executable code created by Defendant’s content authors/website administrators. The executable code includes both the first and second commands for the presentation of the first and second data types, respectively. The executable code couples the presentation of the first and second data types. That is, because the first and second data types are linked together via executable code, the presentation of the first data type causes the presentation of the second data type, automatically. The web server that serves the Defendant Website presents the first data type to the web browser of the client device. Namely, video file of "Boris v Romney" is presented along with the static image advertisement for "Sour Patch Kids." Thus, the presentation of the video file causes the presentation of the static image advertisement, though not necessarily always in that order.

Assuming that Buzzfeed hasn't changed its post, the description in the lawsuit appears to be in error. It claims that the web server downloads both the video and the advertisement. But, the video is an embed from YouTube and the advertising on the page is served from DoubleClick. In other words, the "Defendant Website" downloads neither of the items in question, contrary to the lawsuit's claims.

But, more to the point, the claims in the lawsuit seem ridiculous even if both were served by Buzzfeed. Having a static ad appear next to a video is not what this patent was intended to cover. Even the patent itself describes a system of playing a video advertisement next to a music file -- a completely different situation and purpose. Besides, while embedding videos certainly came out well after this patent came along, the idea of ads running next to videos is hardly new or innovative. The problem here seems to be that the patent examiners, Eric W. Stamber and Mussie Tesfamariam, let a ridiculously broad claim through that the company is now using to file lawsuits over something crazy obvious (having both videos and ads on the same page) that it contributed nothing to.

Buzzfeed is hardly the only lawsuit that Mobile Technologies LLC has filed either. The company has been a busy little bee. The sites it's sued include Wetpaint, Publishers Clearing House, Glam Media, Evolve, BabyCenter, Hollywood.com, DailyMotion, ProjectPlaylist, Justin TV and Radar Online, among many others. Oddly, I see that one of the inventors listed on the patent is Lior Cohen, which is the name of Warner Music's CEO. I'm going to assume that this is not the same Lior Cohen, however. The patent was originally held by Adware LI Inc., and was then assigned to Everad, who later assigned it to EIP Company LLC. There isn't an official assignment to Mobile Technologies LLC in the USPTO database, but that doesn't mean anything. It could not yet be recorded or there may be shell companies involved or a licensing deal or who knows what. Either way, it's yet another example of a mysterious patent holder with a broad patent using it against something completely different than what the patent is supposed to be about, and going after a ton of companies in the process.

I have a question.

So, how come that how content is displayed on TV hasn't had this same type of patent trolling?

No, seriously. If I turn on an ABC Station, sometimes they have adverts that display on a different location on the page than, say, the ball game I was watching.

How come these types of patent trolling lawsuits haven't been going on all these years, and if viewing content in a browser isn't any different than sitting on the couch watching TV, THEN HOW COME THERE ARE ANY PATENT SUITS AT ALL?

Re: I have a question.

It looks like their claim includes copyright violation since it says Buzzfeed copied code that the patent creators wrote. And a few seconds looking at the page source could disprove that easily, as well as whether or not one piece of content causes the other piece of content to load.

Re:

What an absolutely brilliant idea, so much so that it has never been seen in the universe until the publication of this particular patent, which discloses the excruciatingly complex details which no one else would have ever come up with otherwise. And therefore the world thanks you.

Today we salute you Mister Displaying Advertisements With Played Data Inventor. You've given us the real patenters dream, a web page, a video and an advertisement. Throwing caution to the wind, you pushed prior art aside. If there's a patent, you'll litigate - if there's a copyright, you'll demand compensation. And if filed in East Texas, then everything is going to be OK. Mister Displaying Advertisements With Played Data Inventor.

Re:

Hello Sir,

I am writing to inform you that you have infringed on Budweiser's copyrights, patents and, trademarks to use the term "we salute you mr [insert comical reference]". Our lawyers will be by later today to take your first born son.

If you read the patent citations, the patenter already acknowledged that there were a number of previous patents, e.g. by Sun, that cover advertisements on web pages. The novel thing in the patent was that the act of playing the audio/video (clicking play) would trigger an advertisement. However, as far as I can tell, on the Buzzfeed site, it's just an ad that is loaded when the page is loaded. There's no trigger. Where is the infringement?

any "executable code" for control of the "presentation," should such a thing even be able to be said to exist, would certainly have to be executed on the client's computer, not the "web server that serves the Defendant Website"

plus, the idea that "presentation of the first data type causes the presentation of the second data type" is completely false... images function fine without plugins/Flash/javascript...

more dissembling by Masnick

They sell blog filler and "insights" to major corporations including MS, HP, IBM etc. who just happen to be some of the world’s most frequent patent suit defendants. Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are patent system saboteurs receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don’t have any.

“Patent troll”

Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: “we’re using your invention and we’re not going to pay or stop”. This is just dissembling by large infringers and their paid puppets to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft. The fact is, many of the large multinationals who defame inventors in this way themselves make no products in the US or create any American jobs and it is their continued blatant theft which makes it impossible for the true creators to do so.

Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don’t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.

Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.

Ho Hum and Dum Dee Dumbo

If the company sued needs help to defend or reference art then perhaps Masnik can with the proper series of articles or other efforts LEND A HAND.

If on the other hand this article is somehow meant to condemn all patents, inventors, or efforts by inventors through sales to intermediate parties to license their inventions by its example then NO SALE take your snake oil back to your big company sponsors who would like nothing more then to have the playing field tipped completely in their favor.